Logging Shared P1/PIC Time in Log Book

[S-Works]

I have no idea why this is made so complicated all the time.

Under EASA, you can't have two people logging P1 on a flight. The only time two people will log time is if it's Instructional time.

There is nothing stopping two pilots splitting the command of a flight between them. There has to be a clear demarcation where the first pilot hands over command to second and the second acknowledges they have the responsibility for the flight.

I there is no requirement to log take off and landings and it does not matter if you do log them whether they match or not.

The earlier example made about a flight taking off with one person as P1 and then making an IMC recovery with another pilot is a good example of where command can be transferred.

I really don't understand what the obsession of trying to log every minute of time possible is. People would agonise far less if you just fly a leg each rather than trying to finagle a few extra minutes for the log book......

[cavortingcheetah]

'Facts'?
Fact is, FACT is Cape Town but why let that stand in the way of a good story.

[ChickenHouse]

'Facts'?
Fact is, FACT is Cape Town but why let that stand in the way of a good story.

I have my opinion, don't confuse me by facts?

[robin]

I really don't understand what the obsession of trying to log every minute of time possible is. People would agonise far less if you just fly a leg each rather than trying to finagle a few extra minutes for the log book......

Spot on

It's likely to be people who are either hours building or are close to not making the 6 hours/12 hours that would do this. That and those who are struggling with funds.

It annoys me when pilots have an eye on the Hobbs meter rather than fly the aircraft properly.

[Level Attitude]

you had to do an IMC recovery and only one of you was instrument qualified. Might make sense to make them P1 at that point?

Even if pre-agreed on the ground, once in flight the Pilot in Command (PIC) cannot be forced to relinquish command, and can only choose to do so if his, suitably qualified, passenger actually agrees, at the time, to accept command - no one can make them accept this responsibility.

I am not against the principle of splitting PIC time in an SEP flight, but I do think people take too cavalier an attitude to what being in command entails.

Before flight the PIC is required to ensure that the whole flight can be conducted safely - I don't think that "If we hit IMC I will give up command and let my passenger sort it out" meets this requirement.

[PA28181]

I think you are being a bit pedantic, taking the words "Make them P1" out of context. I fully understand what was meant by that, and no-one has yet suggested at any time an element of "making" someone take "Command".

Yet again making it complicated for no reason.

[Level Attitude]

I think you are being a bit pedantic, taking the words "Make them P1" out of context. I fully understand what was meant by that, and no-one has yet suggested at any time an element of "making" someone take "Command".

Yet again making it complicated for no reason.

No, not making it complicated - being pedantic on purpose to emphasise my point.

I have seen, and heard of, too many pilots who flew way beyond their personal comfort level simply because their passenger had more flying qualifications or experience than they did; "knowing"/"expecting" that should things get too hairy for them their passenger would take over.

That, to me, is not being in command - it is being dangerously foolish.
(Pressonitis due to the assumption that a Pax is more capable than the crew)

[PA28181]

Kind off makes any reference to "Safety Pilots" who do accompany pilots who prefer having someone more confident along for the ride, that they are all foolish people rather than sensible ones who know their limitations and use a perfectly acceptable means of ensuring thir flight is less stressfull.

[Level Attitude]

To feel more confident it is a really good idea for a pilot to fly with a passenger who has much more flying experience than they do in order to receive advice, suggestions or guidance. However, to be PIC means they can accept, or ignore, any such advice as they, and only they, wish and are perfectly entitled to tell their passenger to shut up to let them concentrate on flying.

A good example of where this would be helpful is a PPL holder's first cross-channel flight in good visibility.

If a flight only goes ahead because the passenger has said "don't worry, if the conditions prove too much for you I can take over as PIC" then I do not think the flight should have gone ahead in the first place.

Worse would be the case (such as a Group Check Flight) where the passenger says "You are PIC but I will take over if I don't like what you are doing".
How can anyone be In Command if they cannot make the decision as to who should fly the aircraft?

Apart from a Safety Pilot required to be carried due to the PIC's Medical limitation; the term "Safety Pilot" should not be used as it infers the person so called has a responsibility for the flight that they do not actually have and could cause the PIC to change their decision making process or, worse, stop making decisions.